‘They have never once shown any empathy’: ANZ booted family off farm weeks before Christmas

Royal commission hears ANZ gave family six weeks to sell farm1:53

The banking royal commission has examined the case of a Victorian family that was forced to sell off its farm with just six weeks notice to pay back an ANZ loan.
The bank repeatedly refused to negotiate with the family so they wouldn't be left homeless.
The amount of time the royal commission will allocate to covering agricultural loans has now been doubled, with a full week to be dedicated to the topic.

ANZ has “never shown any compassion or empathy” for kicking Tasmanian farmers Michael and Dimity Hirst out of their family home and leaving them “destitute” weeks before Christmas, the financial services royal commission has heard.

The couple, who had been farming in the area for 30 years, specialised in buying property for timber plantations. But as the woodchipping industry collapsed following the demise of forestry company Gunns, they ran into trouble.

ANZ, which took over their loans after acquiring specialist agricultural lender Landmark in 2009, informed them it was selling their property, cattle and even their main residence.

“They have never once shown any empathy, never shown any compassion, and they have never apologised,” Mr Hirst told the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry on Wednesday.

“Where I’m from, if you do something wrong, there’s nothing wrong with apologising, but these guys refuse to.”

Mr Hirst said things initially seemed fine after the ANZ took over the Landmark loanbook, with the bank even wining and dining the couple.

“ANZ took us out to a decent restaurant in our local town, they said we were a very good business and we want to see more of you and basically pumped us up,” he said. “They seemed to think our business model was quite good, and we had made some good deals in previous years, so they pretty much said just keep going.”

Former Tasmanian farmers Dimity Hirst and Michael Hirst said the bank had ‘never shown empathy’ or ‘compassion’ as they appeared before the commission. Picture: Darren England/AAPSource:AAP

The first signs of trouble began in August 2011.

“We had an ANZ relationship manager come out on August 14 and he said, ‘Put the chequebook away,’” Mr Hirst said. “I believe the accounts were frozen on August 23.”

Soon after, they were “hauled into Launceston” by the regional manager and informed they were to be sent to “asset lending” in Melbourne.

Mr Hirst said the explanation was that “ANZ doesn’t like the business you do”.

“We do not lend on the basis of capital sales, we lend on a solid cashflow basis,” he said.

“That really blew us away because right up until that point we had been supported to the hilt, they had groomed us to that point, then they turned and we were just smacked to bits.”

The couple did not have the money for a legal team to challenge ANZ.

It wasn’t until they saw the story of Queensland grazier Charlie Phillott on 60 Minutes, who was forced off his property by ANZ despite never missing an interest payment, that they realised they might have a case.

The next morning they sent a letter to ANZ outlining their grievances. The bank quickly agreed to do a review of their file.

“Initially we had a feeling it was all our fault, but of course as information came [out] in later years, that changed,” he said.

“We’d been belted to bits for five years. We were on a high when Mr Phillott went on [60 Minutes]. We were quite buoyant after that program. But [ANZ] still said they did nothing wrong. We were on a bit of an emotional rollercoaster.”

Dimity Hirst with daughter Ruby, then aged 3, ahead of a sale at one of their farms almost 10 years ago.Source:News Limited

Mr Hirst said his family had been “dealing with all this stuff for eight years now” and “all the time we still had to live” and raise their four daughters.

In a submission to an earlier Senate inquiry, reported by The Australian Financial Review, Ms Hirst said she “had a nervous breakdown, and we were given marching orders to leave our home just weeks before Christmas”.

The Hirsts eventually reached a confidential settlement with the bank, preventing them from speaking about their case until the legal cover afforded by the royal commission.

“Eight years we’ve been dealing with this,” he said. “That last 18 months was tough. We were on a high and then it got taken away through protracted negotiations just to sort out what we’re gonna talk about.

“How hard is it? Tell me how hard is it to talk about what we need to talk about? It was all in black and white. What was the issue? I just do not understand.”

Asked by his barrister Lachlan Molesworth whether he was satisfied the bank played a role in him “losing everything”, Mr Hirst said, “There’s no doubt.”

ANZ’s head of commercial lending Ben Steinberg earlier admitted that the bank had not acted fairly in the Hirsts’ case. “I take the opportunity now to offer the Hirsts that apology,” he said.

The royal commission has received 268 submissions regarding agricultural finance, and 32 of those relate to ANZ’s acquisition of Landmark and its 7124 loans worth $2.3 billion.

Senior counsel assisting Rowena Orr QC suggested that there were systemic cultural issues related to the handling of the Landmark loans, many of which were called in leaving farmers homeless with no substantial financial benefit to the bank.

“I don’t agree with that,” Mr Steinberg said.

Ms Orr then asked why changes were made following media reports in 2014 and 2015.

“We are constantly looking at ways we can change,” he said.

Mr Steinberg said of the 200 Landmark files reviewed, about 40 or 50 resulted in a settlement and about $40 million had been paid.